2007 (3) TMI 20 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Appellant filed refund claim which was delayed by the department and accordingly he demanded interest for delayed period Authority after considering the factor allow the appellant interest for delayed refund.

Summary

Issues: Availing Modvat credit without permission for re-importation, rejection of refund claim, entitlement to interest on delayed refund.

Analysis:

1. The appellants availed Modvat credit on final products received back after export without obtaining permission for re-importation and return of goods to their factory premises. A show cause notice was issued demanding the duty amount, which was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner. The appellants paid the amount before adjudication and claimed a refund, which was rejected. However, the Tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to Modvat credit. A refund claim was filed under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was sanctioned and paid. Subsequently, the appellants applied for interest on the refunded amount from the date of payment to the date of refund.

2. The issue of interest on the delayed refund was considered. The Dy. Commissioner rejected the interest claim stating that since the refund was paid within 3 months of the Tribunal's order, interest was not payable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection. The presiding authority analyzed Sec. 11BB, which specifies the commencement of accrual of interest. It was noted that the refund was not made within 3 months from the date of the refund application, thus constituting a delayed refund. Citing precedents like Rama Vision Limited v. CCE, Meerut and Jayanta Glass Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata, it was established that interest should be granted on delayed refunds. The decision in Coronation Spinning v. CC, Kolkata, relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), was deemed inapplicable to the present case.

3. The presiding authority concluded that the appellants were entitled to interest on the delayed refund from July 1998 onwards. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 9-3-2007.